4 ms·
The article nails the phenomenon on the head -- the "outdoor community" tends towards wealthy and educated -- but then completely whiffs on the obvious deductio
by hyperbovine 9y ago
The article nails the phenomenon on the head -- the "outdoor community" tends towards wealthy and educated -- but then completely whiffs on the obvious deduction. Viz., getting sick from waterborne pathogens carries an opportunity cost that is far higher than the price of a filter. I've had such an illness -- from using a malfunctioning filter in a place where it was really necessary, no less -- and it suuuucks. I'd happily pay $100-200 to not have to deal with that again.
- beamatronic 9y agoHow could you have protected against a malfunctioning filter?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y agoMultiple filters in series, ideally varying manufacturers?
- AstralStorm 9y agoYou mean more manual labour filtering presumably filtered water again? These filters are rarely electric and typically hand operated and partly chemical. (Electric filters tend to fail when you really need them.) Or just heat and apply UV light to water.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y agoThat's exactly what I mean:) The stated problem was getting sick when a filter didn't do its job. The question was how to avoid being infected when a filter (silently) fails. My answer is redundancy. This is more expensive in time, money, and effort, but does mean that a malfunctioning filter doesn't mean you get infected.
- hyperbovine 9y agoBy simply bothering to read the user manual beforehand, in fact.